Eman v Kamau & another (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E112 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 2537 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court refused to excuse an 11-month delay in challenging an advocate's taxed fees, ruling that blaming your lawyer for missed deadlines is not good enough.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Correct procedural basis for extension of time to file a reference against a taxing officer's decision
Paragraph 11 of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2009 is the exclusive and sufficient legal basis; invoking the Civil Procedure Act and Rules is unnecessary and adds no value
The court relied on Hezekiel Oira and Machira & Company Advocate vs Arthur K. Magugu, holding that the Remuneration Order is a complete code and that the Civil Procedure Act cannot be invoked to circumvent the reference procedure under Rule 11.
Whether the delay of 11 months was inordinate and satisfactorily explained
The 11-month delay was inordinate and the explanation of blaming the former advocate was not reasonable
Applying Mwangi S. Kimenyi and the County Executive of Kisumu principles, the court found the delay from 29th April 2021 to 8th March 2022 inordinate, and held that parties bear responsibility for their litigation even when represented, citing Habo Agencies.
Whether the Applicant had an arguable reference
No; the taxing officer had already taken into account the proven Kshs. 130,000/- payment, so no error of principle was demonstrated
Applying First American Bank of Kenya and Nyangito and Co. Advocates, the court found the Applicant's only complaint (failure to offset payments) was already addressed by the taxing officer, who deducted the proven sum, leaving no arguable reference.
Whether judgment should be stayed pending the intended reference
No; the application having failed entirely, there was no justification for a stay
The stay issue was dependent on the earlier findings. With extension of time refused and no arguable reference shown, the court found no basis to stay execution of the judgment entered on the certificate of taxation.
Legal principles established
#- The Advocates Remuneration Order is a complete code on advocate-client bills of costs; a party need only base an application on it, and citing the Civil Procedure Act and Rules adds no value
- Blaming one's advocate is not a reasonable explanation for delay; parties must follow up their cases even when represented
- An arguable reference must disclose an error of principle on the face of the taxing officer's decision
Court orders
#- 1.The Client's chamber summons application dated 8th March 2022 is dismissed with costs to the Advocate/Respondent.
- 2.The decretal amount deposited in an interest earning account as per the court's directions be released to the Advocate forthwith.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Paragraph 11(4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, 2009 (extension of time), with Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution and Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act cited
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Eman v Kamau & another (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E112 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 2537 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment (Chamber Summons application dated 8th March 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2537/eng@2022-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.